Council takes mild tone on impact fees
Process shouldn’t be city vs. developers scenario, Knight says
In discussing proposed impact fees, members of the Yuma City Council made it clear that they did not want an adversarial city-vs.-developers scenario nor were they looking to harm the construction industry just as it’s recovering from the recession.
During Tuesday’s work session, the council heard an overview of the city’s proposed development fee process, Land Use Assumptions and Infrastructure Improvements Plan given by Engineering Manager Andrew McGarvie and Ben Griffin, representative from the consulting firm TichlerBise.
Prior to a scheduled public hearing on the topic on Wednesday, Deputy Mayor Gary Knight said the presentation of the development fees study the prior night “was informational and simply made to make the study results public ...
“This is not a city-vs.developer issue,” he noted, pointing out that the focus should be on figuring out how new development pays for new roads, bridges and construction “so the developers can continue building” and “the best and most equitable way for growth to pay for growth.
“Now that the construction industry is finally making a recovery from the recession, the last thing the city wants to do is stifle that progress. It is imperative that we work together for solutions,” Knight added.
He clarified that the council has a “long way to go before any decisions are made. Future meetings will be scheduled between staff, developers and all relevant stakeholders, and additional council work sessions will be held before anything is voted on by council.”
Acknowledging a posting error, the council then moved to continue the public hearing for a minimum of 60 days to meet state legal requirements.
Although the hearing was postponed, speakers were still allowed to address the council. Harvey Campbell, president of BetterYuma.org, which represents banks, title companies, landowners and other stakeholders, said his members are “very concerned” with the impact fees process.
“We would like very
transparent communications with the city staff in an attempt to come up with amicable resolutions regarding the impact fees for residential, but more important than residential, commercial and office,” he said.
The TichlerBise recommendations were “quite a volume and not an easy material to read,” Campbell said, adding that “construction just got their head out of water. I hope the city administrator will include our organization in collaborating and communicating with us so we can come up with something amicable instead of adversarial circumstances.”
Some of the proposed impact fees would “kill several projects that are being built right now,” Campbell added.
William Katz, attorney for Hall’s General Contractor, said he was encouraged by the council’s comments the previous evening, which he called “very compassionate and considerate” and showed that they were willing to listen. “We look forward to working with city staff and presenting our ideas, participating in an open, positive meaningful discussion about these very serious issues.”
State law requires the city to update the Land Use Assumptions and the Infrastructure Improvements Plan every five years prior to updating development fees. The IIP identifies the necessary public service or facility expansion that the city proposes be the subject of development fees. The region under consideration
is the North Service Area, which includes that portion of the city north of 56th Street (County 14th Street). No development fees are collected in the South Service Area (south of 56th Street).
Costs eligible to be covered by impact fees include facilities and improvements required to serve new development and excess capacity in existing facilities. It does not cover maintenance and repairs nor rehabilitation unless there is a funding plan in place to raise the level of service.
Fees can be collected for five types of public infrastructure: parks and recreation, police, fire, general government and streets.
Fees are based on growth projections. Yuma now has 41,740 housing units and projections call for 47,167 housing units in 2028. Nonresidential square footage is now 21,511 and is projected to grow to 25,215 in 10 years.
The year-round population is now 102,756 and in 10 years is expected to be 114,913. The seasonal population is now 12,452 and projected to be 13,998 in 10 years. The city has 51,927 jobs now and expected to have 59,806 jobs in 2028.
The propose total fees for residential (per unit) are: single-family $4,356 (now $2,572); multi-family $3,142 (now $1,957), all other types, $2,512 (now $1,498). Nonresidential (per square foot): commercial/retail $4.22 (now $1.92); office/institutional $2.74 (now $1.18); industrial/flex $1.82 (now 76 cents); hotel (per room) $921 (now $498).
Knight asked how the current fees got so far behind. “We’re looking at considerable increases in all the residential and nonresidential as well.” Griffin noted that the current fees were adopted at lower levels than suggested. “This represents getting back to where maybe it should have been.”
Griffin also pointed out that proposed impact fees were originally brought to council at the beginning of last year but members decided to hold off to this year.
McGarvie added that a lot of the projects were pulled to reduce the fees during the previous process “because it was right at the downturn. The previous fees structure was almost double what they’re currently paying. This is getting us back to reality.”
Councilman Edward Thomas said he wanted the fees to be reasonable but realistic. Councilman Mike Shelton noted that “being realistic means focusing more on what we need, not what we wish we had.”
Shelton added: “I want to make sure that any talk about an increase in fees that we consider who’s paying them and how much they can pay. This is not money falling from the sky. Somebody is paying and we have to have a concrete idea as to how much this pie would be spread, and if it’s not spread enough, someone gets hurt and that’s the developers who are in the process of building up the community.”
However, Griffin said the city needs to make sure that it charges future development its fair share. “We want to make sure we actually charge them what they’re costing on infrastructure. We have looked at ways to reduce or keep fees low but you do have to keep in mind that people want to move to Yuma for a reason and you want to make sure that you maintain a certain level of service within infrastructure and a certain quality of life … You want to make sure the reason someone’s moving here, that you don’t change that.”
Nevertheless, he added, the council can add or remove services and change the plan at its discretion. McGarvie also pointed out that if a project is not listed on the IIP, then the city can’t use development fees for it.
“Remember, this phase of it is just to determine whether you agree with the land use and the IIP. It doesn’t determine the fees,” McGarvie said, adding that in the next phase, the council will focus on the fees.
“We’re just starting to see considerable growth in construction. Our job is going to be to balance any increase. We don’t want to stifle that growth,” Knight said.